July 25, 2005

Rove And Plame 4: Damage

by hilzoy

Over the weekend, as I was eating lunch, I flipped on C-SPAN and, as luck would have it, the Democrats' hearing on the damage done by the exposure of Valerie Plame was just getting started. I'd urge you all to watch it (it's currently second on the list of "recent programs"; you can skip the opening statements by the various Congresspeople at the beginning). While Democrats held the hearing, the witnesses -- a group of ex-intelligence officers -- were not from any particular side of the political spectrum; the two whose political affiliations were mentioned were a registered Republican and an ex-President of the Michigan Young Republicans. They were there because they were outraged by the exposure of a CIA agent, by the lack of any serious response to it on the part of the White House, and by what they see as either ignorant or dishonest commentary about its implications.

This is one of the things (by no means the most important one) that has dismayed me about this whole episode: the willingness of allsortsofpeople who have no particular expertise in intelligence or clandestine operations to blithely assert that Valerie Plame was not undercover, that outing her did no damage, that this is no big deal. One might think that the possibility that an undercover agent's identity had been disclosed would be serious enough that people would wait before announcing that it didn't matter. And one might think that since the CIA filed a criminal referral about Plame's outing, a prosecutor investigating the matter found enough evidence of a crime to mount a serious investigation, and the judges who have reviewed his evidence in camera think he's after something quite serious, those who are inclined to think that this is no big deal might wonder whether Patrick Fitzgerald might know something they don't. I mean, should we really have to be reminded that outing CIA officers is a big deal, or that random bloggers and journalists might not always be able to figure out someone's undercover status based on their extensive reading of Tom Clancy novels and a few GOP talking points? Apparently, we do.

So here is Patrick Lang, ex-director of the Defense Department's Human Intelligence, to give us the reminder none of us should need.

"I feel particularly strongly about this case, not so much on a personal level so much as I feel that what has happened with regard to this disclosure and follow-up is a kind of structural assault on the ability of the United States to have sound and well-respected and effective clandestine intelligence services.

As I'm sure you know, the present war that we are engaged on, which will go on for a long time, I think, because it is, in fact, a war against a kind of tendency, a set of ideas, that moves around, that kind of war involves enemies that go into subway stations carrying 10-pound packs of homemade explosives. These fellows, they don't have much of a technical signature for their intelligence detection. They have no overhead photography signature: a pickup truck, something like that. They don't really have a signals intelligence signature much because they're very clever and they've gotten to be better and better at not doing the kinds of things that make them vulnerable. So in the end, what you have to have is you have to have human beings who will go and find out for you what it is they're going to do next.

And we haven't done that very well, evidently, up until now. It doesn't seem that way to me, anyway, from the outside. But it is a peculiarity of this kind of war that that is exactly the kind of intelligence that you have to have.

And what has happened here, I think is, as I say, an assault on the ability of the United States to do that. Why would that be? It's because HUMINT is about human beings. It's about one person, an American person, a case officer in the parlance of the trade, causing some foreign person to trust him enough and to trust his unit and to trust the United States enough to put his life, his fortune and, indeed, his sacred honor in many cases into the hands of this case officer and the American intelligence unit that stands behind this case officer.

It's all about trust; it's completely about trust. It's about -- I happen to have done a good deal of this kind of work in my life. And the moment in which some person, whether he's an ambassador or a Montagnard in the hills of Vietnam with filed teeth, decides that he's going to trust you enough so that he's going to believe that you will protect him in every way in doing what he is doing, which is extremely dangerous to him and his family and to everyone else, is a magic moment, indeed. It's almost sacramental in a lot of ways, really. And it imposes on the case officer and the unit behind him in the United States the kind of obligations that are as serious in some ways as the seal of the confessional, really. I mean, I'm a Catholic; I understand exactly what that means.

And the obligation to protect this person is absolute, in fact. And it's not only absolute from the point of view of morality; it's absolute from the point of view of practicality as well, because if within a practicing clandestine intelligence unit the case officers believe that their superiors will not protect the identity of their sources or their own identity, in fact, in doing things which are dangerous and difficult, then a, kind of, circle of doubt begins to spread, like throwing a rock into the water.

And it spreads in such a way so that if an intelligence service that belongs to a particular country comes to be thought generally in the world as an organization that does not protect its own, does not protect its foreign assets, then the obvious is true in that people are not going to accept recruitment, are not going to work for you. And the smarter they are, the better placed they are, the better educated they are, the less likely they are to accept recruitment and to work for you if they believe that you are not going to fight in the last ditch to protect their identities.

And so, this is all completely about trust.

In a strange kind of way, the kind of people who are valuable to recruiters, foreign assets, are a kind of community. They're a community of the well-informed and the alert, and the people who have a great deal of situational awareness. They're often in government. They're in banking or they're in this or that. And these people pay attention to what's going on. And they know whether or not the clandestine services of a particular country can be trusted with their lives. They know that.

And in an odd way, our former Soviet opponents in the GRU and the KGB, they're a good example of the fact that you have to do this the right way, because it was an absolutely never violated thing in the KGB that they ever gave up an agent permanently. They would struggle -- if someone was captured, imprisoned, tried, like Colonel Abel or somebody like that, they would work forever to try to get this person exchanged and get him back, because they knew that if the word got out, in fact, that they wouldn't do that, their sources of recruitment, the trust that people would have in them, would dry up and would go away.

So when you have an instance like this, in fact, in which not just the intelligence community, but the elected government of the sponsoring government, of the major country in the world, deliberately, and apparently for trivial and passing political reasons, decides to disclose the identity of a covered officer, the word goes around the world like a shock, in fact, that, in fact, "The Americans can't be trusted -- the Americans can't be trusted. If you decide to cooperate clandestinely with the Americans, someone back there will give you up -- someone will give you up, and then everything will be over for you." So you don't do it.

And so the very kinds of people you need to get into the heart of this galaxy of jihadi groups and people like this will make a judgment that they are not going to trust you in this way. And once that happens, then the possibility of penetrating these groups, the possibility of knowing that they're going to carry 10-pound bags of explosive in the subway stations, will go right down the drain. It will be done forever. It would take forever to get that back, because this is all about trust and this is a violation of trust."

And here's James Marcinkowski, ex-CIA:

"The exposure of Valerie Plame by anyone in the White House is the same as a local police chief announcing to the media the identity of his undercover officers. It's that simple; everybody gets that. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed. But there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network or a CIA asset working in a foreign government is exposed they have a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department, the CIA, will tell you the major concern of their informant or their agent is their personal protection and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee it in some form or other, the other person is not going to work for you; it's as simple as that. And you will lose that source of information. So the real issue before the Congress and the country today is not the partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's cover are long go. What has suffered irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. If you cannot guarantee that safety, you will not have that person working for you, because if they are exposed, they will in many cases die.

How are case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection and security of the home team? That's what this is about. The loss of secrecy in the world of espionage occur from time to time, and they may be damaging. The stealing of credibility of the CIA officers, however, is simply unforgivable. (...)

Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential agents. I believed Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak and then maybe the initial leak or simply the confirmation of that information, as I believe a CIA officer in some faraway country is going to lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because the promises of protection will no longer carry the level of trust they once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security. Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provides, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously. Each time there is perceived a political success in deflecting responsibility by debating or redebating some minutiae involved in this case, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are, indeed, related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere paper pusher or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it's a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the degree of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities, especially when they're involved in a community of intelligence collection, they know how these things work. They know how they're used. So you may fool the American public by distracting minutia but you're not doing it for people overseas. They know better.

Those who would advocate the "I'm OK, you're OK" politics of non- responsibility should think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means, "We don't care." Not caring means a loss of security, a loss of security means a loss of an agent, a loss of an agent means the loss of information, the loss of information means an increase in the risk to people of the United States.

There's a very simple message here: Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and fix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what impact your actions are going to have on the security to the American people; think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general, in the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would just simply shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security. When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of those persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine across the country in every police department, and every American citizen understands that. That would have, at least, sent the right message around the globe that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously.

Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States. And we have done that since the time of this first breach of trust."

That's what this is about. It should not be a partisan matter. And it should not be something that journalists and bloggers need to have explained to them.

Comments

It has been astonishing* how many right-wing bloggers have simply accepted the Plame Affair as a partisan attack on Bush via Karl Rove.

And presumably will continue to do so, until - Well, when? Is there anything that could happen that would persuade Bush's partisans that he has behaved very badly over this?

*I originally wrote _and disturbing_, but it's the right-wing bloggers who take condemnation of torture and other human rights violations to be merely a partisan attack on the Bush administration who disturb me. The Plame Affair just astonishes me.

I couldn't help but skim the Redstate thread on the CSPAN hearings. To them, the fact that Col Lang opposed the war makes him a partisan hack. The die-hards are completely unable to think rationally about this subject. "Attack the messenger, ignore the message" and "Chalk it up to partisan bickering" are typical reactions to anything Plame related.

Wow! What a display of intelligence, eloquence and nuanced thinking we have here. I'm proud that these two men worked for us, aren't you?

The need for mutual trust and integrity that they talk about should be self-evident. How can we protect ourselves from the people who will say just about anything to score a minor "point" against the opposition and don't care about the consequences?

I agree that the outing of Valerie Plame was despicable. But, hypothetically speaking, suppose the CIA had been involved in the attempted coup against Chavez a couple of years back? And suppose someone leaked this information, including the names of CIA agents involved, to the press. I'd be happy about that and wouldn't want the leakers found. But most of the same arguments made by these two agents would apply then. I don't deny that we need the CIA or something like it and there are negatives to exposing an agent's identity--it makes it harder for the CIA to recruit assets in other countries. But in some cases I think exposure is justified, which is why I don't like the 1982 law. Is there a way of writing a law about outing CIA agents which would distinguish between cases like Valerie Plame and cases where some legitimate whistle-blowing is going on?

I found some of Lang's words a little bit creepy, frankly. "Sacramental", "a community of the alert and well-informed", etc.... To hear him talk the CIA is almost a religious order and the people it recruits as assets overseas tend to be boy scouts who'd do well on Jeopardy. Probably some of the people it recruits are heroes. Others are probably people who'd sell anything to anybody, and some are probably what we'd call terrorists, depending on who they blow up. Lang gives the game away when he cites the KGB as a model organization when it comes to instilling loyalty in its troops. It's a very limited sort of morality we're talking about here, folks, the kind of morality covert operators need to do what they're going to do, whether it is good or evil.

And suppose someone leaked this information, including the names of CIA agents involved, to the press. I'd be happy about that and wouldn't want the leakers found.

I'm not sure I agree with this -- yes, I'd probably want to know about the nefarious actions of our agents, but I don't see why we'd need to be told their identities, especially if that might put people in danger or harm other, more legitimate actions.

And the problem with leaking directly to the press in any case is that the leaker is taking sole responsibility for what should and shouldn't be made public -- even when it's well-intentioned, it could be bad judgment.

But you're probably right that the interests of some of the people testifying may not entirely align with ours.

Part of the problem is that the racket from the left *is* in part motivated by a desire to get at Bush via Rove. The fact that Rove is guilty of significantly undermining US security (by his own admission) makes the attack particularly effective, but within the context of the level of partisanship prevailing in the US it's not too surprising to see the right circling the wagons. I think it's pretty clear at this point that even viewed through a partisan prism the right course of action for the GOP is to just take the hit for the sake of national security (not to mention justice) and move on to the next round of the fight. The fact that there are so many diehard defenders of Rove says something very bad about the current structure of the GOP, in particular its concentrations of power and the vindictiveness with which deviations from the party line are punished.

From a political tactics point of view the best course of action for the Dems is probably to try to keep the most strident accusations to a minimum and to push CIA insiders to the fore.

Unfortunately we do not live in a country where political considerations can be taken out of national security issues or issues of executive accountability. The independent counsel law was supposed to help address this problem, but that didn't work out too well under Clinton. I expect to see major smears directed at the special prosecutor in the coming weeks.

"From a political tactics point of view the best course of action for the Dems is probably to try to keep the most strident accusations to a minimum and to push CIA insiders to the fore."

Why do you think this is the best course of action for the Dems? I'm actually torn on this issue...

On one hand I think the political environment might mean overt outrage and partisanship on the part of the Dems will actually work against them. It seems the more they complain, the more marginalized they become in the eyes of the millionaire pundits. Maybe it is best for whistleblowers (partisans themselves) to make the charges.

On the other hand, wtf does someone have to do around here to get an investigation? Unless the Dems speak loudly and often about how these issues, they won't reap the full advantage come election time. I mean, they have to position themselves as an alternative to the scandal-ridden Repubs. To do that, they need to be heard.

"Attack the messenger, ignore the message" and "Chalk it up to partisan bickering" are typical reactions to anything Plame related.

That's been the motto of Bush supporters for years, and it applies to much more than just Plame: O'Neill, Clarke, Rather, Newsweek, Amnesty, ICRC, Durbin, and on and on. It will be Fitzgerald's turn soon enough.

Andrew C: "Part of the problem is that the racket from the left *is* in part motivated by a desire to get at Bush via Rove."

Well, since all sorts of people are making a racket, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that all sorts of motives are represented. But for me, and I think for a lot of other people, partisan politics is not the main thing. -- I mean, I'd like to see Karl Rove get his as much as anyone, with the exception of people he has personally smeared. He has spent his life doing despicable things, and I'd love to see him finally get nailed for one of them. But that is absolutely not the main point.

"within the context of the level of partisanship prevailing in the US it's not too surprising to see the right circling the wagons." -- Maybe not surprising, but incredibly disheartening nonetheless. There are some things that matter more than partisan politics, and national security is one of them. And there are some moments when you (the generic 'you', not 'you, personally') should not just reflexively react to what you think the other side is doing, or parrot talking points, but actually think about what's right and try to do it. And this is one of those times.

The fact that people who supposedly care about winning the war on terror, protecting this country, and so forth don't see that outing an agent is wrong, that trashing someone who (unlike most of them) chose to risk her life in the service of her country is wrong, that playing 'I know all about espionage' to keep the heat off people who harmed our country's security for political gain is wrong -- well, I don't think that 'hey, some of their opponents are partisan' begins to explain it. No one with a shred of intellectual integrity or decency would jump on this bandwagon.

But for me, and I think for a lot of other people, partisan politics is not the main thing. -- I mean, I'd like to see Karl Rove get his as much as anyone, with the exception of people he has personally smeared. He has spent his life doing despicable things, and I'd love to see him finally get nailed for one of them. But that is absolutely not the main point.

Fascinating question: which thing is the main thing?

On the one hand, my partisan desire to get Rove for just about anything--at least, for anything that's really a bad thing--is HUUUUGE.

But on the other hand, my background in intelligence consists primarily of reading lots of Graham Greene and John Le Carre novels, and in their (shared) world, the one thing you absolutely don't do is reveal a covert agent's identity. If you do that, you will go to Hell. So the idea of a political operative, Republican, Democrat, Tory or Whig, casually outing a covert agent in order to score a political point that is really of rather trifling significance truly makes me see red.

That's what makes it an interesting question: which one weighs more heavily in the balance, getting Rove or getting the person who did this heinous thing? Not sure, but they both weigh a whole lot.

"Sen. Roberts doesn't have time to investigate the manipulation of prewar intelligence, the Niger forgeries or the Plame disclosure.

"But he does have time to investigate how the CIA uses 'cover' in its clandestine operations. And as part of his new exercise in water-carrying he will also investigate Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal probe.

"Note the specifics: I didn't say he'll be investigating what Fitzgerald's investigating; he's apparently found time to investigate the Fitzgerald probe itself. Roberts' spokesperson Sarah Little told Reuters that his 'committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.'"

Trickster: to me, national security is the main thing. Basic decency is the second main thing, and it makes me think: you do not, not, not destroy the career of someone who, as I said, decided to risk her life for her country, and you especially do not, not, not do it for stupid political reasons.

Getting Rove has two aspects, for me: one is the schadenfreude, the 'ha ha, the guy who thought it was OK to try to smear someone with a great record on kids' issues as a pedophile finally gets his'. This is dwarfed by everything else. The other, which is more serious, is that it might -- just might -- do something to harm what one might call Rove-ism: the idea that you can do literally anything to your opponents for political advantage. This, which I think of as distinct from the 'ha ha' part, falls under 'basic decency', and if I thought that this episode would actually mean the end of Rove-ism, I'd rank it a lot higher. As it is, though, I think it's likely to have a minor impact (if any) in that regard, so it comes in a distant third, as considerations go.

Let us remember that "Rove" is the nominal name we are using whether we are in it for the good of the Republic or for the cheap thrills of schadenfreude.

"Rove" does the express bidding of the smirking, winking, swaggering, gunslinging one with the deeply ingrown, messianic bitterness somebody bequeathed to him along the way. The one who shall not be questioned. The tough guy who tears up for the troops, like a Mafioso at the opera.

For me, Rove is just a means. The Republic will survive these earnest, corrupt children. But Bush must be punished.

Give us all the solemn pomp and circumstance of an impeachment. A person can bow his head at the gravitas of the situation and still without shame kick his heels up in joyful vengeance.

Get mad and get even. It's about time we relived the 1990s, this time for substantive reasons. So many enjoyed it the last time. They'll come out of their seats this time.

P.S. I have special plans for Grover Norquist; some sort of exquisite feathered public humiliation. I wonder where he'll hide. It'll be a private affair, fully outsourced and utterly unregulated ... no tax dollars or the heavy hand of government involved.

"Roberts' spokesperson Sarah Little told Reuters that his 'committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald..."

So Roberts is going to investigate Fitzgerald? What the heck for? What's he going to do, slow down or stop the GJ by hauling Fitzgerald in for hearings?

Fitzgerald joins the ever-growing list of Republican public officials, Cabinet members, and judges- some of 'em conservative Republican public officials, Cabinet members, and judges - whom the GOP has gone after one way or another. The one common thread among them is that they were insufficiently loyal to George Bush and/or the fundamentalists.

Is the Party purging itself of everyone except Bush loyalists and fundamentalists?

What is that going to mean for the GOP when Bush's term is up?

How can you remake a Party to be all about an extremist religious fringe that comprises at most 25% of the electorate?

How can you remake a Party to be all about one man when that man can't legally stay in office after January 21, 2009?

Could one of the Republicans on this board take a stab at explaining what's going on here?

I have a hard time thinking that Plame was able to recruit anyone based on our past performances. I know I wouldn't be itching to flip my compadres if the feds were going to get me killed to sway a vote.

How can you remake a Party to be all about one man when that man can't legally stay in office after January 21, 2009?

he'll use his Political Capital and Wartime Popularity to bop around the country, giving rousing speeches to the faithful (just as he does now), but this time, it'll be on behalf of the chosen successor (Jeb? Cheney? Rice?) who will run on a platform of "GW2!!!"

hilzoy - I completely agree with you that the focus needs to be on the national security issue rather than the partisan one. The problem I see is that there is so much smoke and so many mirrors that the logical first reaction to a statement that a politician or operative has done something terribly wrong is to assume it's a lie (at least for those who are unable to simply file everything under 'not proven' until further information comes in, which I suspect is most people). We're way past the point where reasonable people can continue with the assumption that the Plame leak is a non-issue, but I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for those who assume the worst about the accuser. I was one of those with respect to the Lewinsky allegations, having been taken in previously by earlier accusations against the Clintons. By the time the smear machine found something that was actually true I had all but tuned them out, and it required DNA evidence to change my mind.

The flip side of this is that it's to both sides' advantage to amplify the nuttiest allegations of the other camp, precisely because it helps inoculate them against the lesser (but accurate) allegations. In the end it's democracy that takes the hit, no matter which side is throwing the punches.

Despite having expressed some sympathy for the other side (it's a liberal sacrament, donchaknow), I share the feeling that the people trying to deflect criticism from Rove and the other leakers are doing the country a grave disservice. The leakers need to be severely punished, not just for the offense they have committed, but also as a message to other potential leakers and to people whose trust that their identities will be protected is a prerequisite for cooperation with our intelligence services.

Trickster: But on the other hand, my background in intelligence consists primarily of reading lots of Graham Greene and John Le Carre novels, and in their (shared) world, the one thing you absolutely don't do is reveal a covert agent's identity. If you do that, you will go to Hell. So the idea of a political operative, Republican, Democrat, Tory or Whig, casually outing a covert agent in order to score a political point that is really of rather trifling significance truly makes me see red.

Yes, exactly. I find myself in general agreement with Donald Johnson, more often that not, and I take his point that there might well be a good reason to out a CIA agent's identity. And, of course, everyone is the hero in their own movie: to argue that it's okay to do it for good reasons is to argue that it's okay for anyone to do it so long as they claim their reasons are good.

Which is, of course, precisely what the Bush partisans are doing as they try to reframe the Plame Affair in terms of what Joseph Wilson said or did.

The only answer, I think - and it's my answer to Donald Johnson as well as to all the Bush partisans out there - is that if you work for the government, and you decide to out a CIA operative for what seem to you very good reasons, you can do so: but you then have to pay the price for doing so. If it seems sufficiently important to you that you are willing to lose your job, end your career, and risk a prison sentence, then make the sacrifice and do it.

But evidently, this isn't how Karl Rove feels, nor how anyone else in the Bush administration involved in the Plame leak and subsequent coverup feels. Punishing Joseph Wilson was not important enough to be worth the people who did it losing jobs, ending careers, or risking prison sentences.

Could one of the Republicans on this board take a stab at explaining what's going on here?

I can't speak for the Republican party (not that I ever could, but it's even more true now that I am no longer a Republican), but for myself: my only dissatisfaction with Fitzgerald's performance to date is how frickin' long it's taking. I realize this is an ongoing case and all, but we seem to learn about one new bit of data every three or four weeks. If that.

But on the other hand, my background in intelligence consists primarily of reading lots of Graham Greene and John Le Carre novels

I've also got almost exactly zero experience with intel data. I have reviewed quite a lot of data that was classified (as the controversial portion of the INR memo was) SECRET/NOFORN, and in my experience, I have never, ever seen the name or even the location of a covert asset. All that I, personally, have ever seen classified at that level was data that's been scrubbed to the point where it wasn't obvious who might have provided it. Can I conclude that the identity of covert agents would be classified at a higher level than that? No, but I'd guess that it would be.

The other thing that I'd project is that the letter and various public statements by several former CIA agents to the effect that Plame was in fact covert is only evidence if they're in a position to know. It's extremely hard for me to believe that on ongoing need-to-know for this sort of information would be granted.

Other than that, I'm reserving judgement until such time as the investigation is concluded.

Slarti: The other thing that I'd project is that the letter and various public statements by several former CIA agents to the effect that Plame was in fact covert is only evidence if they're in a position to know.

We're all in a position to know that Plame was covert. If she wasn't, the investigation ended just as soon as Fitzgerald confirmed this, because if she wasn't, no crime was committed by leaking her identity.

I agree that the outing of Valerie Plame was despicable. But, hypothetically speaking, suppose the CIA had been involved in the attempted coup against Chavez a couple of years back?

Uh...wouldn't that be, like, illegal? A leak that exposed illegal activity on part of any federal agent/actor is OK. Leaking information for political gain when the information leaked has nothing to do with illegal activity and also does actual harm is not OK.

I'm not comparing Plame to hypothetical CIA agents involved in overthrowing governments, Praedor. Plame's job really was to help defend the US from the WMD threat. I'm questioning a law that says you should never reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative. I think there have been real life cases where I probably would have cheered if CIA operatives had been exposed. If the law allows exposure when CIA agents are doing Bad Things, then I have no complaint.

If it doesn't, maybe Jesurgislac's position is the least bad option--the whistleblower should do the right thing and face up to the jail sentence. But I'd prefer, if possible, to have a system where whistle-blowers don't go to jail. How did the US survive before this 1982 law was passed?

As for the outing of Plame, asuming it was done by Rove or Libby for despicable reasons (as I tend to believe), then honest people across the political spectrum should rise up in outrage and demand the resignations of the people involved. You don't necessarily need a law in place to be able to tell right from wrong in a particular situation.

If it doesn't, maybe Jesurgislac's position is the least bad option--the whistleblower should do the right thing and face up to the jail sentence. But I'd prefer, if possible, to have a system where whistle-blowers don't go to jail. How did the US survive before this 1982 law was passed?

Ok, now I'm confused. If the whistleblower in accomplished an unauthorized disclosure of classified information that resulted in that information being completely compromised, that person can be punished with prison time, regardless of whatever 1982 law you speak of.

There is a reason she was outed. That reason needs to be investigated.

heet, I'm not sure why you think this requires a separate investigation. Given a disclosure of classified data, the severity of penalty is going to be directly related to the degree to which this disclosure was deliberate. I'm thinking the reason, if there is one, is going to get plenty of attention.

Oh, about the time I came back from vacation, Anarch. It's not that anything fundamental has changed, just that I see that endorsing either party by being a registered member is not something I care to do. Basically, both major parties have abandoned any appearance at actually running (or caring about running) the country in favor of throwing rotten produce at each other.

Regarding investigations, I think the more interesting question, and one that as far as I can tell is not being investigated, is: who forged the Niger documents and for what purpose? My understanding is that they were obvious forgeries, with such defects as the wrong name for a government minister. Josh Marshall has given us some details but the trail seems to be cold at the moment.

Those are interesting questions, ral, but completely unrelated to the Plame case as far as I can see. As are Joe Wilson's veracity, Karl Rove's Evilness Quotient, Valerie Plame's soccer-mom-ness...and pretty much everything else other than the circumstances surrounding the purported crime.

If the law allows exposure when CIA agents are doing Bad Things, then I have no complaint.

I disagree, in general. Balance is needed. (Where's Sandra Day O'Connor when you need her?)

The problem is that while the agent may deserve to be punished, the exposure may lead to very bad consequences for innocent people in all sorts of ways. Does that mean being in the CIA is a grant of immunity? I don't think it has to be. First of all, if the bad deeds are not criminal it is possible to punish offending agents administratively - discharge for example - without disclosing the identity. If the matter is a political one, like your example of overthrowing Chavez, it is the policymakers who ought primarily to be called to account. Speaking in general again, wouldn't the CIA officials who orchestrated such a coup generally be non-covert top officers? Porter Goss' job is not classified.

Outright criminality is a more difficult matter, but I wonder whether some cases at least can't be dealt with without revealing the CIA connection. If an agent murders someone that's murder. If the CIA connection becomes important surely there are ways of dealing with the case.

I'm not sure where I read about it--probably some lefty website--but I've picked up the impression that there was a law passed in 1982 that made it illegal to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent.

To Bernard--

I suppose how I'd judge the morality of revealing a CIA agent's identity would depend on the circumstances. The problem is that the government is always going to claim that there are life and death reasons why this or that secret has to be kept secret--I'm not sure, but I imagine that there were claims that the publication of the Pentagon Papers would do irreparable harm to our national security.

[ ral: What was the origin of the documents? slarti: ... completely unrelated to the Plame case as far as I can see. ]

Unrelated to the prosecution of a crime (if crime there was), perhaps, but essential to understanding the larger picture.

After all, it was due to those documents' existence that Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger. As I understand the story, Amb. Wilson had not seen them when he made his trip, but they were the proximate cause of his going. It's a very tangled tale, and many red herrings have been paraded out.

I would say my question is strongly related to the matter of how a government (any government) should handle intelligence gathering, which seems to be the topic of this post. This is a very important national security issue in today's environment of terrorist threats.

Oh, about the time I came back from vacation, Anarch. It's not that anything fundamental has changed, just that I see that endorsing either party by being a registered member is not something I care to do.

I'm not sure which of the above is best, so your guess may well be better than mine. To me, it's more a sign that all of the things I disliked about politics that had me vote for Perot in 1992 have simply gotten worse.

But the real question is: did they make you give back your VRWC decoder ring?

Damned thing never worked right anyway. It's the ass-kicking boots that I'm more concerned with.

For people with a more warped sensibility, the hearing on the motion to release the Uighur prisoners -- still held prisoner although the government has determined that they are not enemy combatants -- is set for August 1. The motion has been declassified, and I suppose the hearing will be open to the public.

The prisoners are stuck in limbo because the United States fears the governments of China and Uzbekistan, which have a history of repressing Muslims, would kill them if they were sent home, but no other country wants them.

Doesn't sound anything like "cooties" to me. Still, it seems that holding people prisoner for their own good isn't what we want to be doing right now. If they want to go home, they ought to be allowed to. If there's truly nowhere they can go, then...I don't know; maybe, since we took them into custody to begin with, the burden of asylum lies on us.

"They have been detained in here with some very bad people, under some very bad influences," Weir said. ''We can't just release them into a hotel amongst the civilians on the base. . . . We understand the point of what the lawyers are saying, but it's an impossibility."

I think we are talking about an ideological form of cooties here. In other words, in the view of the Army, we might very well have made these men dangerous by imprisoning them for four years. Go figure.

Once I finished reading that article I noticed the ads at the bottom of the page: